IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/ceedps/0051.html

Should Research Universities be led by top researchers? Part 1: Are they?

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Goodall

Abstract

If the best universities in the world – who have the widest choice of candidates – systematically appoint top researchers as their vice chancellors and presidents, is this one form of evidence that, on average, better researchers make better leaders? This paper addresses the first part of the question: are they currently appointing distinguished researchers? The study documents a positive correlation between the lifetime citations of a university’s president and the position of that university in a world ranking. The lifetime citations are counted by hand of the leaders of the top 100 universities identified by the Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in their ‘Academic Ranking of World Universities’ (2004). These numbers are then normalised by adjusting for the different citation conventions across academic disciplines. The results are not driven by outliers. This paper posits the theory that there are two central components involved in leading research universities: managerial expertise and inherent knowledge. It is suggested here that active and successful researchers may have greater inherent knowledge about the academy that in turn informs their role as leader.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Goodall, 2005. "Should Research Universities be led by top researchers? Part 1: Are they?," CEE Discussion Papers 0051, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.
    • Handle: RePEc:cep:ceedps:0051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cee/ceedp51.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew J. Oswald, 2010. "A suggested method for the measurement of world-leading research (illustrated with data on economics)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 99-113, July.
    2. Daria Gerashchenko, 2024. "Research topic switch and its relation to appointment as university leader," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1841-1862, March.
    3. Goodall, Amanda H. & Kahn, Lawrence M. & Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Why Do Leaders Matter? The Role of Expert Knowledge," IZA Discussion Papers 3583, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Goodall, Amanda H., 2011. "Physician-leaders and hospital performance: Is there an association?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(4), pages 535-539, August.
    6. Goodall, Amanda H. & Pogrebna, Ganna, 2012. "Expert Leaders in a Fast-Moving Environment," IZA Discussion Papers 6715, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. John McCormack & Carol Propper & Sarah Smith, 2014. "Herding Cats? Management and University Performance," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(578), pages 534-564, August.
    8. Oswald, Andrew J., "undated". "World-Leading Research and its Measurement," Economic Research Papers 271312, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    9. Amanda Goodall, 2013. "Should Doctors Run Hospitals?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 11(1), pages 37-40, 04.
    10. Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "The Objective Measurement of World-Leading Research," IZA Discussion Papers 8829, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Amanda H. Goodall, 2010. "Why Socrates Should Be In The Boardroom In Research Universities," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt6230c4jd, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    12. repec:ces:ifodic:v:11:y:2013:i:1:p:19078515 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cep:ceedps:0051. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/cee-discussion-papers/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.